Seeing an example of evolution…

We noted the need to see an example of evolution so that you can get your bearings. So what does the ‘macro model’ in WHEE tell us as an example?
>evolution can’t be random and construct complex structures using chance
>in a real example we see immediately a ‘non-random’ pattern, a series of intervals, the most basic non-random pattern.
>this takes the form of a succession of ‘transitions’ or active phases at the start of the interval…
>this shows that ‘evolution’ needs a driver…we don’t see the driver but we do see its direct effect in the transitions:
>we see the sudden onset of innovations or remorphed situations during the transitions
>the transition is followed by down time as the transition induces a set of completed changes and/or returns to it starting point…
>these transitions could come in a series, shaping a final outcome…

There is more but that is the basic nexus of ideas. This is something we discovered in history, where we have data at the level of centuries or less, over a limited range. For history that is a minimum no doubt. Biological evolution would be different, with intervals of a different kind or length, but it is highly probable the basic pattern as above would apply.Note immediately that a driven interval with relevant data at the centuries level would be invisible in deep time. Even if the relevant interval were ten thousand years, or even a million, it would be invisible. Note this please! All we would see is forms that have already come into existence undergoing adaptation to their environment. We probably wouldn’t see the innovation interval.

The point here is that random evolution is always going to be false, i.e. unable to construct complexity. It can test adaptations, but those must exist before hand. Thus our example is most likely the key also to evolution in deep time. Our example is so general it applies to many situations, and thus we should be careful: our analog explains evolution, but it is not a one to one match. There are many situations that fulfill this logic. Evolution may be more than this, but it will probably be at least this. Philosophers have called this situation one where a ‘principle of sufficient reason’ must apply. That is, there must be an explanatory framework.

We are describing a discrete/continuous model of ‘finite transitions’, fancy jargon, but the format is like vanilla ice cream, really basic, and applies to endless types of situations. Consider a locomotive: we don’t need to know much about physics to see that an engine cycle is a direct analogy of our perceived dynamic: watch a locomotive: we see at once without any thermodynamics our series of cycles, a transition at its start, i.e. an active ‘push’ and then a succession until the system starts over in a new cycle. It is more complex than that, but the core idea is there. This shows how general our perception is and as ‘evolution’ it would have more and additional properties. What might these be? Unlike a locomotive ‘driven evolution’ must inject innovations in a field (cultural or biological) and that is very obscure. But it is roughly analogous to a blueprint. Nature might do this differently, but at each driven cycle the system must transit in some way, realizing its blueprint. The succession to the driven phase will ‘relax’ as the novelties interact with the environment, survive or fail. Here is where we see how darwninists go wrong. They can’t see the driver, so they think adaptation does everything. False.
It does not follow that thermodynamics explains evolution. Our example was really a principle of sufficient reason: we found the level between random and nonrandom where ‘explanation’ enters.
The point here is that thinking random mutations are going to produce complex innovations is a delusion biologists can’t shake. That is strange, but it is clear that if you try to produce a real theory you will have a hard time because the driven phase isn’t easy to observe. In our historical model we can see that sequence of transitions and even though we don’t see the source of the form innovation process.

I for one would ascribe this to a situation like a distinction of noumenon and phenomenon: we see the evolutionary phenomenon, but there is a hidden component.

We can see that current science could end up getting totally confused, thinking that it must do ‘science’ in a fashion that is actually misleading.

Note finally that biologists have already stumbled on this: we hear many times that ‘speciation’ is often sudden followed by a static phase. Sound familiar? And note that S.J.Gould almost stumbled on this: his punctuated equilibrium is another version of our analog. But Gould confused the issue by making it compatible with random evolution, and missed the point.